37520 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

expenses. See E.I. DuPont at 15–24.

Therefore, for purposes of the instant

review, the Department will continue to

use Akzo’s reported cost of production

and constructed value data in

calculating the antidumping duty

margin.

Comment 5: Akzo claims that the

computer program used in calculating

the preliminary results contained three

errors that must be corrected. First,

Akzo argues that the difference in

merchandise (DIFMER) adjustment was

miscalculated by failing to convert the

submitted variable cost of

manufacturing of the U.S. product

(VCOMU) from kilograms to pounds.

Akzo explains that because the U.S.

sales are reported on a per pound basis

and the analysis is conducted on the

same basis, it is necessary to convert the

DIFMER adjustment to a per pound

amount. Second, Akzo claims that in

calculating the net constructed export

price (CEP), the Department correctly

added U.S. packing costs to normal

value but incorrectly included U.S.

packing costs as an adjustment to the

gross price, thereby understating the net

CEP and overstating the margin. Third,

Akzo argues that the Department

incorrectly deducted the ISE incurred in

the home market on U.S. sales from CEP

after correctly determining in the

preliminary results and LOT analysis

memo that these expenses were not

related to the economic activity in the

U.S. Akzo provided suggested changes

to correct the alleged errors.

Petitioner did not rebut any of Akzo’s

aforementioned suggested corrections.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with Akzo and has

revised the final margin program to

reflect these changes. First, the

Department has converted VCOMU from

kilograms to pounds to ensure that the

final margin analysis is performed on a

comparable basis. Second, the

Department has corrected the margin

program to ensure that both the CEP and

NV are calculated inclusive of packing

costs. Finally, the Department’s

preliminary margin calculation program

inadvertently included ISE that were

not incurred in connection with

economic activity as deductions to the

U.S. selling price. The Department’s

analysis in the Level of Trade Memo,

dated March 2, 1998, is correct in

stating that only those expenses

incurred connection with economic

activity in the U.S. will be deducted

from CEP in conducting the margin

analysis. For purposes of these final

results of review, the Department has

revised the margin calculation to reflect

the conclusion of the Level of Trade

Analysis memo. For further explanation,

see Calculation Memorandum, dated

July 7, 1998.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine that the following weightedaverage margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter

Period of review Margin

(percent)

Akzo ........ 6/1/96–5/31/97 6.31

All Other .. 6/1/96–5/31/97 66.92

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions on each

exporter directly to the Customs

Service. For assessment purposes, we

have calculated importer specific duty

assessment rates for the merchandise

based on the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales during the POR to the

total entered value of sales examined

during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

of review for all shipments of PPD–T

aramid fiber from the Netherlands

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rate for the reviewed company will be

the rate listed above; (2) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in this review, a

prior review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (3) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 66.92 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation

(59 FR 32678, June 24, 1994). These

deposit requirements shall remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a

certificate regarding the reimbursement

of antidumping duties prior to

liquidation of the relevant entries

during this review period. Failure to

comply with this requirement could

result in the Secretary’s presumption

that reimbursement of antidumping

duties occurred and subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.305 and 19 CFR

353.306. Timely written notification of

return/destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 351.221.

Dated: July 7, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18596 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–831]

Fresh Garlic from the People’s

Republic of China; Notice of Recission

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Recission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On December 23, 1997, the

Department of Commerce published in

the Federal Register (62 FR 67044) a

notice announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic

from the People’s Republic of China.

This review covered the period from

November 1, 1996 through October 31,

1997. The Department of Commerce has

now rescinded this review as a result of

the absence of reviewable entries and

sales into the United States of subject

merchandise during the period of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane Krawczun or Thomas Schauer,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–4733.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37521

1Armco, Inc. is not a petitioner in the Mexico

case.

2 J& L Specialty Steel, Inc. is not a petitioner in

the France case.

3Butler Armco Independent Union is not a

petitioner in the Mexico case.

4Zanesville Armco Independent Organization,

Inc. is not a petitioner in the Mexico case.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register on November 7, 1997 (62 FR

60219) a ‘‘Notice of Opportunity to

Request Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic

from the People’s Republic of China (59

FR 59209, November 16, 1994). On

November 18, 1997, Fook Huat Tong

Kee Pte. Ltd. (FHTK), the respondent,

requested an administrative review of

imports of its merchandise into the

United States. The Department initiated

the review on December 23, 1997 (62 FR

67044).

Documentation we received from the

Customs Service subsequent to the

initiation of the review demonstrated

that, although Customs received

importation documentation for the

shipment of the subject merchandise,

this shipment did not result in a

reviewable entry or sale within the

period of review. Therefore, we are

rescinding the initiation of this review

in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(d)(3). For further information

regarding this recission, see the decision

memorandum entitled ‘‘Whether to

Rescind the 96/97 Administrative

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order

on Fresh Garlic from the People’s

Republic of China,’’ from Laurie

Parkhill to Richard W. Moreland dated

July 6, 1998.

The cash-deposit rate for FHTK will

remain at 376.67 percent, the rate

established in the most recently

completed segment of this proceeding

(59 FR 59029, November 16,1994). This

notice is in accordance with section

777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended.

Dated: July 6, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18595 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–427–814, A–428–825, A–475–824, A–588–

845, A–201–822, A–580–834, A–583–831, A–

412–818]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Stainless Steel Sheet

and Strip in Coils From France,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, South

Korea, Taiwan, and the United

Kingdom

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Abdelali Elouaradia (France), at (202)

482–2243; Robert James (Germany), at

(202) 482–5222; Rick Johnson (Italy,

Republic of Korea, and Taiwan) at (202)

482–3818; Dorothy Woster (Japan), at

(202) 482–3362; Tom Killiam (Mexico),

at (202) 482–2704; Nancy Decker

(United Kingdom), at (202) 482–0196,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (62 FR 27296, May 19, 1997).

The Petition

On June 10, 1998, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received

petitions filed in proper form by

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Armco,

Inc.,1 J&L Specialty Steel, Inc.,2

Washington Steel Division of Bethlehem

Steel Corporation (formerly Lukens,

Inc.), the United Steelworkers of

America, AFL-CIO/CLC, the Butler

Armco Independent Union 3 and the

Zanesville Armco Independent

Organization, Inc.4 (petitioners). The

Department received supplemental

information to the petitions on June 15,

16, 17, 19 and 24, 1998.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, petitioners allege that imports

of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils

(SSSS) from France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea,

Taiwan, and the United Kingdom are

being, or are likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value

within the meaning of section 731 of the

Act, and that such imports are

materially injuring an industry in the

United States.

The Department finds that petitioners

filed these petitions on behalf of the

domestic industry because they are

interested parties as defined in section

771(9) (C) and (D) of the Act and they

have demonstrated sufficient industry

support with respect to each of the

antidumping investigations they are

requesting the Department to initiate

(see Discussion below).

Scope of Investigations

For purposes of these investigations,

the products covered are certain

stainless steel sheet and strip in coils.

Stainless steel is an alloy steel

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more

of chromium, with or without other

elements. The subject sheet and strip is

a flat-rolled product in coils that is

greater than 9.5 mm in width and less

than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is

annealed or otherwise heat treated and

pickled or otherwise descaled. The

subject sheet and strip may also be

further processed (e.g., cold-rolled,

polished, aluminized, coated, etc.)

provided that it maintains the specific

dimensions of sheet and strip following

such processing.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at

subheadings: 7219.13.00.30,

7219.13.00.50, 7219.13.00.70,

7219.13.00.80, 7219.14.00.30,

7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90,

7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20,

7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35,

7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38,

7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44,

7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20,

7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35,

7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38,

7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44,

7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20,

7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30,

7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05,

7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30,

7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10,

7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25,

7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80,

7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00,